Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judson Laipply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judson Laipply

Not sure, but nothing is cited here. I believe that this may fail WP:BIO and perhaps WP:V. Though there is a lot of claimed coverage, it isn't cited nor can I find it in a search (though my browser has been acting up ever since the last update so this may be the cause). I am going to stay neutral on this but let people decide in AfD if it should stay or go. Brian (How am I doing?) 02:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This isn't a vote so do you have an arguement on 'why' the article should be kept?--Brian (How am I doing?) 04:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with clean-up. His act has been seen by millions of people over the internet, therefore he passes WP:BIO (A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following). The first citation on the page is from the guy's own site and the second is broken (no longer links to the specific newspaper article), so some of the facts on the page need to be cited.CindyLooWho 03:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You took that out of context to fit your arguement. If you read it IN CONTEXT then it says Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following . This only applies to movie and TV stars...not internet celebs. Nothing is cited on this page and per WP:BIO 'multiple' sources are needed...not one. So your arguement basically is just keep with nothing supporting it.--Brian (How am I doing?) 04:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: 1. As someone who seems to be "up" on Wikipedia rules, you should know better than to make an edit (even a small one) to someone else's comments in a discussion thread. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if I started doing it to your comments. Please don't do it to mine. If you think I took something out of context, then YOU can put it into context entirely in YOUR comment. 2. I agree that I took criteria from "notable actors and television personalities" because there is no criteria for internet video personalities and yes, I could have made that clearer. 3. The subject still passes the alternative WP:BIO "Google Test" (gets lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism) by a country mile - 65,800 hits on Google for "Judson Laipply" and 634,000 for "Evolution of Dance". That alone gets my keep vote. 4. I've already agreed that independent citations are needed for a couple statements made on the page. I've fixed some and requested one more. I'm sure it can be found. If not, it only means the deletion of one sentence - not the entire page. In my personal opinion, there is no way this page should be deleted.CindyLooWho 05:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I almost never use this phrase, but his "Evolution of Dance" video is a notable Internet meme. I'll check the citations on the page to make sure there is support for its media coverage. --Metropolitan90 04:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep. I have to agree with Metropolitan90. Numerous sources of citation are online and simply need to be added to the article; the video is indeed a notable meme as well (and he wasn't just on YouTube - he had the #1 viewed video on YouTube. Well, that is, according to him). --Jitterro 05:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Now that we have some citations of coverage, I'm thinking this would pass WP:V and WP:BIO. I am still staying Neutral on this however. --Brian (How am I doing?) 06:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable, sourced and cited. Although I haven't personally verified, it seems verifiable. Wjhonson 06:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Multiple, verifiable, non-trival sources. Catchpole 07:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the popularity of Evolution of Dance can be verified from somewhere other than Laipply's own website. That seems to be the only claim to notability here. JCScaliger 20:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • His video can be seen on multiple independent sites. Among others, YouTube.com has no ties to Laipply - and they have had over 31 million downloads of his video (this number is seen on YouTube's "Evolution of Dance" download page). This fact is already cited on the Wiki page. Quite frankly, I think this a real no-brainer keep. Tens of millions of people know who this guy is (although granted most probably don't know his actual name). That's plenty to warrant a Wikipedia biography. CindyLooWho 23:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Then the article should say so, and not mention his website at all. This might have avoided the AfD altogether. JCScaliger 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Cindy, I need to point out this to you: Popularity on YouTube means nothing for notablility here at Wikipedia. The video could have 3 views or 3 billion...it doesn't matter. YouTube does not count as a 'source'. The only sources that are accepted are the media articles (magazines, books, newspaper articles, and tv reports). I just wanted to make that clear. I have seen 9 (nine) videos from YouTube (which all appeared on the most watched of all time list) removed because they did not have any reliable sources (YouTube and blogs don't count). --Brian (How am I doing?) 04:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The article already includes citations of articles from the Boston Globe and the Sydney Morning Herald (the latter is actually an Associated Press article which appeared in multiple newspapers), both of which support the number of views being in the multi-millions. --Metropolitan90 07:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but clean up - he's notable, the fact the YouTube website says he's had 31 million views should surely be enough to keep him. However, the page does need cleaning up. Shouldn't Wikipedia be about giving people information on stuff that's notable? This guy seems notable enough to me. --Tyron1 14:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - interesting personality Doxent 12:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -- And why is it that we seem to have go through this process for each and every person from Youtube? Can't we agree that after 4-6 keep votes on other Youtube folk that we can just agree to keep them until proven otherwise? I know we don't want articles about anybody and everybody. But we have people attacking the most famous Youtube people over and over. I think we should pick some criteria to use for this... be it number of video views, number of videos, google hits, or some combination of these and other things. But going through this whole process each and everytime is getting to be incredibly time consuming and dare I say stupid. I'm also getting more and more PO'ed at folks who ask for citations from various media sources, which they are then given. They then act like they were never told of them and say there are none over and over, as if "The big lie" is part of their AfD strategy. It may work in real-world politics folks, but I'm getting sick and tried it on Wiki. Dave 06:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep DXRAW 06:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.